|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Metaphysics, Suffering and Liberation: A Buddhist Meditation |
|
|
|
| Author |
Lin, Chen-kuo
|
|---|
| Source |
Fifth Conference of the International Society for Philosophy and Psychotherapy
|
|---|
| Date | 1996.07.15 |
|---|
| Content type | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| Language | 英文=English |
|---|
| Note | 735; 會議地點：美國,加州; 主協辦單位：San Diego State University,U.S.A. |
|---|
| Keyword | 佛教=Buddhism; 解放=Liberation; 佛家哲學=Buddhist Philosophy; 形上學=Metaphysics; 苦=Suffering; 現代性=Modernity |
|---|
| Abstract | The main thrust of Buddhism is to meditate on the cause of suffering and
overcome it. This concern becomes intensified when Buddhism steps in an
inevitable situation of encountering with modernity. Suffering and
modernity，a pair of seemingly incompatible concepts, are there in brought
forth as a focus of philosophical meditation. Is suffering concealed in
modernity? Or，should modernity be viewed as "an unfinished project" of
Enlightenment? This controversy is squarely confronted with by both
modern Buddhist and Western thinkers.
In this paper，firstly，I will examine the "postmodern" positions often
associated with the names such as Nietzsche，Heidegger，Adorno and Derrida,
which claim that modernity is subject to suffering and illusion because
it is embedded in metaphysics of identity or subjectivity. They contend
that the oppressive character of the metaphysics of identity is diagnosed
as the cause of suffering. Taking this controversy as a backdrop，secondly，
I will explore how modern Buddhist thinkers, or scholars of Buddhist
philosophy，respond to the call of modernity. Two positions are discussed：
Critical Buddhism and Topical Buddhism. Critical Buddhists, notably
O-yuang Chin-wu (1871- 1943) and Lu Cheng (1896-1989) of the Chinese
Institute of Buddhist Studies, and Hakamaya Noriaki and Matsumoto Shiro
of Komazawa University，argue that authentic spirit of Buddhism is
compatible to the project of modernity. Against this criticism，Topical
Buddhist thinkers or scholars, such as Nishitani Keiji of the Kyoto School
and Malcolm David Eckel，would rather disagree with Critical Buddhists,
arguing that they either fail to see the limits of logocentrism or are
incapable of letting difference cry out. Though they do not disagree with
Critical Buddhists in criticizing the metaphysics of identity，they
realize that religious or socio-political liberation must be achieved
through the critique of self-centered rationality.
In the concluding part，I will argue that the unfinished project of
modernity can be carried on through negative dialectics in the Buddhist
sense. That is, there is no pure fulfillment of modernity without
suffering. This the same as the Mahayana's saying that there is no nirvana
without samsara. If samsara and suffering are ontologically part of
modernity，as Adorno also points out in Dialectics of Enlightenment，
metaphysics will not be eliminated or overcome completely. The problem
left is how to play metaphysics in the more joyful and deconstructive ways. |
|---|
| Hits | 494 |
|---|
| Created date | 2001.02.21
|
|---|
| Modified date | 2013.12.25 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
